CHURCH UNION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 18280, 24 June 1921, Page 2

CHURCH UNION

TO THE EDITORSin, —It is refreshing to find that Church affairs are deemed by you of sufficient importance to warrant a leading article in your issue of June 11 on the question _of Church Union. I much enjoyed the readjng of that article, while, at the same time, it gave me furiously to think. I thank you for emphasising the point that we Congregationalists—though we may be little among the thousands of Israel in this dominion—are in a world-sense still ot some account. We played no mean part in the events of its yesterday: we occupy no insignificant place in its to-clay; and in the shaping of its to-morrow we have something to do. On this wo who are opposed, not in the least to the union ot which you speak, “free and equal,” but to “ uniiorpiiDy,” which is not at all the same thing, take our stand We believe in New Zealand; with all our hearts we are confident as to the developments that are bound to come in its life and fortunes—in matters ecclesiastical as in all others, —and we believe in Congregationalism enough to feel that we have in those developments a ministry to offer and a function to discharge which can not be done “just as well” by any other. We are persuaded that it would bo little less than a disaster if there should happen that submergence of our individual geiuus which seems to be, threatened by the proposed basis of union at present being considered and adopted by the various Presbyteries of this country. Your article says that “ the leaders ot the Presbyterian Church have been clearly and publicly warned that Congregationalists "are not prepared to contemplate anything like ‘ absorption ’ or ‘ merging.’ ” purely the hearing has been dull, or the warning has not been clear—the speech as of those who havo “plums in the mouth’’—for. “absorption” is the suggestion of every clause of the proposed as we—and others'—read it. Let those warnings be again repeated. Many of us—some even of the majority voting for union—do not contemplate any such thing; we never did. or • ever shall. Unity in the aim of our work,, unity in the shaping of the methods by which that aim shall be attained—that we wished, and that we wish still, wishing at the same time to conserve for our existing Congregational Churches those things which make them what (hey are,—freedom from the imposition of any Creed or Confession which shall become the tribal shibboleth; and, the autonomy of each church, responsible to, and governed by, the Divine Head of the Church alone, and free from the control of any external authority whatsoever; sensitive and loyal to the leading of His Spirit. No matter what any say, who may speak as “leaders of the Congregational Church,” their words are theirs, and only theirs, and do not bind us all to the acceptance of the doctrine or the polity of the Presbyterian Church. This may be cne of the weaknesses cf our Congregationalism but it is—a paradox—its strength too. Whoso may prefer the Presbyterian polity to our own — that is his concern We are surprised—and have our own convictions. Between the basis reported as being under the consideration of the Presbyteries, and the basis we supposed was to be considered —and which by the way a considerable minority were not prepared to adopt—there are some very material differences. Some of us wonder vastly what possible reason there may bo for excising the sentence “ with which is united the Congregational Union of New Zealand ” and so on from the name of the “United Church.” We wonder why the properties held in trust by our Congregational Union only on behalf of the independent churches, are to be vested in the Presbyterian Church Property Trustees —under provisions of a certain Act of Parliament and not (if change must be) in a joint body representing both; Churches. Where is the equity ? We wonder, Why this talk of a new Act confirming the United Church in the title of the properties—and what, we wonder, will be the effect as regards any Church which may elect not to unite ? And, as you suggest, we are in grave concern as to the effect the proposed union is likely to have on the support hitherto accorded by our Churches to the historic and beloved London Missionary Society. In asking you, of your courtesy, to be good enough to find room for this letter hi ay I say it is not inspired by any spirit of contumacy nor by any love of controversy ? If there is to bo any union that is worth while the union of heart, we must know the standpoint each of the other. ' Publicity is essential for that. No union that is based on anything else than* mutual understanding, and the recognition born of that, will do nothing to forward that which wo all most earnestly desire, the coming together of the whole Church of Christ in the unity of the Spirit and the bonds of peace. —I am, etc., Henry J. Huffadine. Trinity Congregational Church, Christchurch, June 21. Sir, —Let us agree, not matter to what denomination you or I may have belonged or been associated with, that all life’s important issues centre around our faith in eternal verities. Without going into the means that churches have parleyed with, permit me to address my fellow citizens upon the matter of real union for the sake of the Kingdom of God. Personally, I will be glad to hear or read correspondence addressed to the newspapers from such as are likeminded. Could not all Christians Who desire church union meet together, to whatever denomination they may have belonged. and in this way realise what is dear to their hearts and to God’s heart ? Ministers from the various denominations could bo asked through an elected committee to preach Sunday after Sunday, and the same committee would see to- the general business and week-night gatherings. The one central and all-pervading throught should be Christ, the uplift of humanity resulting accordingly. _ There need, in'; fact, be no further condition of membership than that one pronounces by word and action that Christ is Redeemer and Lord. I have heard it said that church union would never come through the ministry but through the people themselves. As I have personally been closely associated with all the prominent 'denominations, I feel-that I may add my humble testimony to that fact. Indeed, I believe I can with assurance go a step further and say that each ministry or denominational doctrine stands for and remains separate in consequence of particular truths which each holds In hugging (if I may use the word) these particular truths or doctrines they accordingly ignore the particular doctrines or truths held by the other denominations and, sad to relate, in many instances resist and oppose their fellows who live and labour in the ranks of the Evangel. The lay people—or, shall I say, the average Christian —realises the contention thus caused and the terrible overlapping of charities which in some oases is a veritable means of evil, and longs for the kingdom of love and justice! Who will not admit with me, after having laboured in the ministry of several denominations, that the denominations all seek to love one another but find that the devil has made it impossible by his concocted points of difference, causing separation ? Will not some of your readers stand with me in setting forth by pur worshipful lives that wo do indeed love the brethren ? When I suggest, in regard to the possible mooting together for worship of all who seek the union of the churches,, should we not agree that every minister who is asked to speak shall have the right to preach whatever ho believes whetner it be election, baptism, or blood and fire? Lot us not dares to hinder the ministry of God; but let us be united in our praises around the throne and at the same time taking heed that no so-called ministry hinders us in the path of love, x-ighteousness, and peace.— I am, etc., Horace Smith. 556 Castle street, Dunedin. Sir,— l beg to join “A Loyal Anglican” in the hope that the union of churches may soon come. Never before was unity more needed than the present. Numbers of members of this parish are becoming members of other churches. What is , the reason of this cleavage? A ritual has crept in which is quite foreign to us Anglicans of New Zealand. What “ A Loyal Anglican ” says of the pomp of that ritual is correct. The ritualistic party wants us all turned out. Of course they say, if we do not like it we must go elsewhere. We older members have been loyal workers, as our balance sheets prove. Only last year we held two sales of work and the results were most satisfactory. Twothirds of those workers are members of the Anglican Church of New Zealand; the others of this new-born party, the Ritualists. At those sales we had the hearty support of our old membei’s, who came back to help what was thought to be the Moderate Church. Now, Ritualism has again been sprung upon us. Two of the gentlemen who were asked to resign—1 do not know the other personally—have been faithful church workox-s for 36 years. Our grandparents built the church, and wo in turn have done cur share. It. belongs to us, and no minority can take it from us I hold that those who want Ritualism in our beautiful church service should step out for themselves and build to suit their own requirements I trust members in authority will make a point of attending the next procession service. Hoping an abler pen than mine will take this very important matter up and so help,—l am. eto. Another Loyaa Anglican. Oaverslxom Jqne 2^